The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-10-26
PROHIBITION AT STAKE.
THE COUNSEL FOR THE ANTIRUM
SIDE CONFIDENT.

A Belief That the Court Would Not
Refuse to Hear Additional Argument
If a Decision Adverse to the Legality
of the Legislation Was Contemplated.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25.--Attorney General
Bradford and Mr.. Packard. counsel for the
Prohibitionists, in conversation to-day, said
they could not conceive that the denial of
the motion to advance by the court implied
that the forthcoming decision will be adj
verse to prohibition. "This is a question of
the greatest Importance, said Mr. Packard.
"A decision overthrowing the prohibition
legislation would be widespread in its
effects. It is one of the most important
affairs the court has ever had before it, and
it stands to reason that the court would not
refuse additional light if it contemplated n
decision against the validity of the pro-
hibitory statutes. The court would
naturally want all the light 1t could obtain
before announcing such decision"
The Star this evening says: 'The counsel
who are striving to maintain the validity
of the Kansas and Iowa prohibitory legis-
lation before the United States Supreme
Court, are endeavoring to get additional
argument before the court before any de-
cision shall be announced. The denial OF
the motion to advance the cases peuding on
the docket and to withhold decision upon
cases already argued was apparently dis
appointment TO the Prohibitionists. They
seem to feel that further argument of. their
case is important, if not essential.
A MOTION TO REOPEN.
after the decree of the court denying
the motion to advance the pending cases
was announced. Attorney General Brad
ford, of Kansas, offered a motion in the
Supreme Court yesterday to reopen the
cases hitherto argued and submitted ON the
ground that the counsel on the other side
(for the liquor interest) violated an agrees
ment-that after having agreed to submit
the case on briefs they put in an oral argus
ment. The court directed that the motion
be printed.
CLAIM OF THE OPPOSITION.
"ThoSe who are opposing prohibition con.
tend that there was no violation of any
agreement. They say there was an agree
ment between the counsel representing both
sides in Kansas, but that it did not extend
beyond the counsel then in the case; that
the counsel then in the case did not submit
any oral argument, but Mr. Choate, of New
York, who was specially employed by the
brewers of New York. made an argument;
that no agreement made between the coun-
sci in Kansas could be binding upon him.
and hence that the claim of violation Of
the agreement is not well founded.
A MoMENToUs QUESTION.
attorney General Bradford and Mr..
Packard, counsel for the Prohibitionists, in
conversation with Star reporter, said they
could not conceive that the denial of the
motion to advance by the court implies that
the forthcoming decision will be adverse to
prohibition. This is a question of the
greatest Importance said Mr. Packard. A
decision oyerthrowing the prohibition legis-
lation would be very widespread in its
effects. 1t Is one of the most important and
far-reaching questions the court has ever
had before 1t. 1t stands to reason that the
court would not refuse additional light if ID
contemplates a decision against the validity
of the prohibitory statute The court would
naturally want all the light it could obtain
before announcing such decision"